Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 1220 - CESTAT MUMBAIValuation of imported goods - mis-declaration of value of goods - the enhancement of value done on the basis of the documents received from the U S Customs through Consulate General - imposition of redemption fine and penalties - HELD THAT:- There is no merit in the submission of the Appellants that enhancement of value done on the basis of the documents received from the U S Customs through Consulate General, is not warranted. The decision of COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY VERSUS EAST PUNJAB TRADERS [1996 (11) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT] referred to by the Appellants to is distinguishable, as in the para 5 of the judgment, it is specifically recorded that the documents were not recovered through the officially prescribed channel and were not collected from the Customs of the concerned countries. By mis-declaring and filing the Bill of Entry on the basis of manipulated invoices, appellants have definitely suppressed the value of the goods imported. Or their act of suppression with intent to evade payment of duty extended period of limitation as per the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 has been correctly invoked in the present case - For this reason the penalties imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 are justified - it is also evident that appellants have filed/ caused to file the Bill of Entry on the basis of false or manipulated invoice for mis-declaring the value hence in our view the provision of Section 114AA to get attracted in the present case. It is true that for the act of misdeclaration the goods became liable for confiscation under section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Further for their act of misdeclaration making the goods liable for confiscation, Appellants are liable to penalty under Section 112(a). In view of the fact that proviso in Section 114A specifically provides that if the penalty has been imposed under that section, penalty cannot be imposed under Section 112, Commissioner has not imposed any penalty on Appellant 1 on whom penalty under Section 114A has been imposed - no penalties have been imposed on the managing director and executive director of the appellant company. Imposition of redemption fine - HELD THAT:- Since the goods were not available for confiscation nor released provisionally after seizure to appellants against bond and bank guarantee, the order for confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine cannot be sustained. Demand of Interest - HELD THAT:- Since appellants have short paid the duty at the time of clearance the demand for interest under Section 28AB to is justified - the demand of interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 is upheld. The impugned order is upheld except for setting aside the order in respect of confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine - appeal allowed in part.
|